By Farish A. Noor ~ September 28th, 2009
Source: http://www.othermalaysia.org/2009/09/28/irrational-politics-revisited-how-conventional-political-theories-no-longer-work-in-malaysia/
Its bad enough that academics and political theorists are badly paid and overworked; now it seems that we have to make sense out of a mode of politics that is, frankly, nonsensical and irrational in Malaysia.
Perhaps the cause of the dilemma that is faced by many academics today lies in the fact that we were trained in rational choice theory and the assumption that human being are, and can, work and live as rational agents who are capable of making rational choices in life. That was certainly the predominant ethos in the 1960s to 1970s, when it was assumed that nation-building was a rational process to be driven and determined by technocrats who at least attempted to plan and develop the country along rational lines. It was assumed, for instance, that with the accumulation and division of wealth then the comfort zones of all communities would slowly expand and that greater income and capital equality would lead to a more equitable society that was more tolerant and harmonious.
It was also assumed that with mass rural migration to the urban industrial zones the nature of social relations and social bonds would become more contractual and rationalised, and that primordial loyalties to birth-places, clans, essentialist notions of identity and feudal modes of politics etc would diminish with the passing of time.
These were the pipe-dreams of technocrats and social scientists who perhaps spent too much time in the laboratories of the developed world and failed to see the prevailing social realities of Malaysia in the face. Social scientists (and I include myself in this list of losers) failed to note that despite the superficial trappings of progress and development, Malaysian society and culture remained mired in the politics of communalism, feudalism, narrow ethnic and racial communitarianism and the like. We earnestly believed that science and technological advancement would open up new opportunity structures and introduce new social arrangements where identity politics could be reconfigured on perhaps a less essentialised basis.
But we failed to note the social realities on the ground: Despite the prattle about modernity and modernisation, Malaysian politicians - of all parties - practiced and perpetuated the mode of neo-feudal politics where loyalty to the leader was paramount and ideology was secondary. We failed to note that even the most seemingly secular-leftist parties in Malaysia could not transcend the parochial and primordial politics of race and ethnic solidarity. We failed to note that despite the rise in literacy levels the most popular reading material in the country remained the tabloid press and sleazy magazines that featured an incessant dose of bomoh and pontianak stories, rape stories, sex scandal stories and the like. We failed to note the level of superstition, anxiety and apprehension towards modernity in a country that boasted of having the tallest twin towers in the world, but where people believed that the 41st floor and the 3rd level basement of the same building was haunted. In short, we failed to note that Malaysia was a hybrid nation that was only superficially modern.
Today we are trying to make sense of Malaysian politics and it is painfully and embarrassingly obvious that the politics of the country is senseless. The instances of apparent public insanity among our politicians is plainly demonstrated for all to see: Leaders of the BN coalition talk about racial equality and respect while some of them openly unsheath weapons and talk of racial supremacy in public. Politicians talk of respect for communities yet do nothing when cows’ heads are cut off and paraded in public in a protest against Hindu temples. Opposition politicians talk about presenting themselves as the new alternative to national politics, but begin their gambit to power by banning alcohol, music concerts and generally upsetting every liberal minded Malaysian they can find. And now the new Makkal Sakti party is set to add yet another party to the already overcrowded landscape of Malaysian politics, after having first supported Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat to the hilt, only to do a u-turn in public and to denounce the Pakatan and openly support the Barisan.
It would appear that two important developments have occured:
Firstly, the horizon of possibility of Malaysian politics has expanded to a hitherto unprecedented degree, and where anything - and literally anything - can happen tomorrow. The erratic behaviour of Malaysian politicians and Malaysian political parties means that it is now practically impossible to predict what the respective politicians and parties will do next. Political alliances are made and broken at a drop of a hat, and political loyalties seem more focused on personalities rather than ideologies than ever before.
Secondly, the erratic and unpredictable nature of Malaysian politics today signals the return to short-termist politics in the narrowest sense of the word, where long term national interests are no longer held to be important and all that matters is winning the next by-election (and not even general election). The lack of national focus and a view of Malaysia’s place in the world now and into the future was aptly demonstrated during the recent spat between Malaysia and Indonesia over cultural claims over batik and other forms of art and culture that is equally shared between the nations. Malaysia’s response was so lame and slow as to give the impression that the country’s foreign policy at present is aimless. Why? Because the political elite of the country at present have been engaged in a prolonged exercise of introverted navel-gazing and self-preservation instead.
In the midst of all this, analysts and scholars can no longer explain or understand Malaysian politics. How does one explain a party that claims to be the spokesman of a minority community which then decides to join forces with the very same groups that have been denigrating that minority in the first place?
Without sounding overly pessimistic or derisive, perhaps the time has come to abandon the old and outdated paradigms of rational choice theory when looking at the Malaysian political model; and to see if the time has come for a new paradigm altogether. Now more than ever there is the need to seriously analyse and understand the nature of Malaysian politics, but perhaps outside the sphere of the rational, objective and scientific.
Perhaps the cause of the dilemma that is faced by many academics today lies in the fact that we were trained in rational choice theory and the assumption that human being are, and can, work and live as rational agents who are capable of making rational choices in life. That was certainly the predominant ethos in the 1960s to 1970s, when it was assumed that nation-building was a rational process to be driven and determined by technocrats who at least attempted to plan and develop the country along rational lines. It was assumed, for instance, that with the accumulation and division of wealth then the comfort zones of all communities would slowly expand and that greater income and capital equality would lead to a more equitable society that was more tolerant and harmonious.
It was also assumed that with mass rural migration to the urban industrial zones the nature of social relations and social bonds would become more contractual and rationalised, and that primordial loyalties to birth-places, clans, essentialist notions of identity and feudal modes of politics etc would diminish with the passing of time.
These were the pipe-dreams of technocrats and social scientists who perhaps spent too much time in the laboratories of the developed world and failed to see the prevailing social realities of Malaysia in the face. Social scientists (and I include myself in this list of losers) failed to note that despite the superficial trappings of progress and development, Malaysian society and culture remained mired in the politics of communalism, feudalism, narrow ethnic and racial communitarianism and the like. We earnestly believed that science and technological advancement would open up new opportunity structures and introduce new social arrangements where identity politics could be reconfigured on perhaps a less essentialised basis.
But we failed to note the social realities on the ground: Despite the prattle about modernity and modernisation, Malaysian politicians - of all parties - practiced and perpetuated the mode of neo-feudal politics where loyalty to the leader was paramount and ideology was secondary. We failed to note that even the most seemingly secular-leftist parties in Malaysia could not transcend the parochial and primordial politics of race and ethnic solidarity. We failed to note that despite the rise in literacy levels the most popular reading material in the country remained the tabloid press and sleazy magazines that featured an incessant dose of bomoh and pontianak stories, rape stories, sex scandal stories and the like. We failed to note the level of superstition, anxiety and apprehension towards modernity in a country that boasted of having the tallest twin towers in the world, but where people believed that the 41st floor and the 3rd level basement of the same building was haunted. In short, we failed to note that Malaysia was a hybrid nation that was only superficially modern.
Today we are trying to make sense of Malaysian politics and it is painfully and embarrassingly obvious that the politics of the country is senseless. The instances of apparent public insanity among our politicians is plainly demonstrated for all to see: Leaders of the BN coalition talk about racial equality and respect while some of them openly unsheath weapons and talk of racial supremacy in public. Politicians talk of respect for communities yet do nothing when cows’ heads are cut off and paraded in public in a protest against Hindu temples. Opposition politicians talk about presenting themselves as the new alternative to national politics, but begin their gambit to power by banning alcohol, music concerts and generally upsetting every liberal minded Malaysian they can find. And now the new Makkal Sakti party is set to add yet another party to the already overcrowded landscape of Malaysian politics, after having first supported Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat to the hilt, only to do a u-turn in public and to denounce the Pakatan and openly support the Barisan.
It would appear that two important developments have occured:
Firstly, the horizon of possibility of Malaysian politics has expanded to a hitherto unprecedented degree, and where anything - and literally anything - can happen tomorrow. The erratic behaviour of Malaysian politicians and Malaysian political parties means that it is now practically impossible to predict what the respective politicians and parties will do next. Political alliances are made and broken at a drop of a hat, and political loyalties seem more focused on personalities rather than ideologies than ever before.
Secondly, the erratic and unpredictable nature of Malaysian politics today signals the return to short-termist politics in the narrowest sense of the word, where long term national interests are no longer held to be important and all that matters is winning the next by-election (and not even general election). The lack of national focus and a view of Malaysia’s place in the world now and into the future was aptly demonstrated during the recent spat between Malaysia and Indonesia over cultural claims over batik and other forms of art and culture that is equally shared between the nations. Malaysia’s response was so lame and slow as to give the impression that the country’s foreign policy at present is aimless. Why? Because the political elite of the country at present have been engaged in a prolonged exercise of introverted navel-gazing and self-preservation instead.
In the midst of all this, analysts and scholars can no longer explain or understand Malaysian politics. How does one explain a party that claims to be the spokesman of a minority community which then decides to join forces with the very same groups that have been denigrating that minority in the first place?
Without sounding overly pessimistic or derisive, perhaps the time has come to abandon the old and outdated paradigms of rational choice theory when looking at the Malaysian political model; and to see if the time has come for a new paradigm altogether. Now more than ever there is the need to seriously analyse and understand the nature of Malaysian politics, but perhaps outside the sphere of the rational, objective and scientific.
